Siezed GT40

I use 2 long bolts in the end holes of the exhaust manifold.
Remove the other bolts and slide the manifolds back out of
the way on the long bolts.

It works good to r&r v/covers and exhaust to head gaskets.
Keeps the cusin' to a minimum.

MI-nick wrote: since it's been under water, i'm sure the manifolds will just come right off...

No kidding!! Be very careful of the riser bolts (the long ones). Two of the four (one on each riser) on mine sheared/broke off with little stubs sticking out of the exhaust manifold when I replaced my heads. It took multiple torching, etc. before I finally got the stubs out (and I had a fused manifold bold that I had to grind off). If the manifolds/risers come out easily, then I agree taking them off is probably easier than trying to take the VCs off with them on. But if you just want to get to the valves first and any of the manifold or riser bolts are showing signs of not coming off easily, I'd try to get the VC off first (since you want the manifolds/risers on to test the engine once you've checked the valves). Having to deal with problems with the manifold just to get them back on to further test the engine will add a ton of time. The manifolds/risers will need to be dealt with, but I think I'd want to confirm the status of the engine before I spent any time on sheared riser bolts or fused manifold bolts.

   Bret, yes, it was a really incredible deal, and since we've been wanting a newer boat for a while, it all just made sense. We just called Stacey's phone and left a message. We also have Art from Southeast in the neighborhood, and he has been a great help.

   Update: After a new set of plugs, it will start up and run good.... until it runs out of starter fluid. (The lubricated starter fluid, of course!) So it is apparent that the injectors are not functioning for some reason. They do have power (Confirmed with test light), but we don't see any flicker in the light indicating that the injectors are being activated. So, at this point, I suppose we have run into a computer related issue? As far as the valve covers and manifolds go, we will wait to see how it runs and then pull them off if need be. The manifold bolts don't look complete destroyed, but as you all have explained, I'm sure they will test my patience. After doing a little snooping around it does look like we could possibly remove the valve cover without touching the manifolds, but it is TIGHT in there.

   A note worthy mistake I made today was to shoot the starter fluid into the intake with the little straw attached to the can. The straw ejected from the can into an unreachable part of the intake, so I had to remove the intake and shake it until the straw fell out. Luckily, in my furious tirade, I was able to remove, and re-install the intake in 10 minutes or so without any damage.

If anyone has any ideas about my lack of fuel supply, please fill me in! Thanks for all the help, Jake.

Silver remove the 60 pin ECA connector and inspect the connectors. If water got over the relays it would have at least got to the computer connector height. I would then remove the computer from the bracket and inspect the circuit board for water damage. It has a rubber gasket around the outside of the housing that may have offered some protection from water intrusion. But if it was submerged I doubt it would be waterproof. As long as power was not applied to the computer ECM while wet it maybe ok. If the ECM is NBG that $2000 complete engine starts to look better.

It must have had almost a 10"-12" of water above the floor level for the relays to go under. Hopefully it never got higher than that.

Update: Pulled the injectors the other day as well as the rail. I don't know much about injectors, but imagine they shouldn't be completely plugged with gunk. So I sent them to a local injector shop to be cleaned and reworked. The company sent them back saying they were "damaged beyond repair". So from that, I would tend to say I found my problem. (We checked again and had better inication that the injectors were recieving signal to open.) Lewy, I took apart the plug you were referring to. All seemed sound in there. What should I expect to pay for new injectors? I've heard everything from $50 to $200 a piece. Thanks a bunch,
Jake.

Direct Link

Not sure of the Marine application but they will be either 19lb (orange top) or 24lb (blue top). If they are the same a automotive I would go to a you pull it yard and find them. Ford trucks, vans, mustangs, etc. They may need cleaned also but if they are proven "bad" most yards will exchange them for good ones.

I had to do this for an old Mustang, during a cam install one went missing. Never had any problems with it.

All injectors are installed, and it started right up! Runs pretty well for not having been started in 3 years, being partially submerged for part of that time as well as being neglected it's entire life. :) It has a little water leaking from the intake manifold gasket area, so I'll need to check that out. Lots of smoke from oil that leaked onto the exhaust manifold. Seemed like it could also be getting hot running on the hose. I will confirm with the thermo gun. Pretty good progress for one weekend. Also, for any of you who were following my "'66 Barracuda" thread, the heads are almost back on. Maybe both of these rigs will have their debuts on the same day!? Does anyone know the proper oil capacity for the GT-40? Is it standard 5 qts? Thanks to everyone who helped and posted! Jake.

Gordon, they were bought on Ebay. We actually ended up paying about $90 for the set of 8. They were used, cleaned, tested and flowrated. The vender's Ebay ID is "eazeefind". He deals injectors, so he may have some more on there. http://www.ebay.com/sch/eazeefind/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=&_trksid=p3686 The blue top 24lbs are the ones you want. Hope this helps. Thanks for the oil spec. Just wanted to double check.
Jake

Thanks Jake!

Kevin, do you need a transmission too? Or just an engine?

KRoundy wrote: I have a 1.23/1 transmission from a 1992 SN.

I'm thinking you might be better off with a non-EFI powerplant. This isn't because of the transmission, it's because of what was probably in your boat before.

You'd need a low pressure fuel pump at minimum and some extra electrical knick-knacks to get it all to work with a GT-40. I'm sure others would have more specific recommendations. The carb-GT-40 conversion has probably been done before but may not be the easiest route.

KRoundy wrote: Wouldn't all that stuff (fuel pump, electrical kick-knacks) come with a complete engine? Please educate me. If I have to narrow down my search to a narrow band of engines I need to know.

Good question, I don't know. That might warrant a separate post.

Silver, I'd run it again, then do an oil and filter change, then run it again and do the same. Likely some nasty particles running around inside that motor you want to get rid of.

Silver15 wrote: In 93, I believe they offered a fuel injection system called the "Protec". I hear it wasn't the best system and tended to break. You may be good just sticking with your current engine, unless you're set on more power for footing or what not.

The Protec was an ignition system, not a fuel injection system. It came on both carbureted (1991+) and TBI EFI (1994-1995) motors.

Joe has begun to catalog the GT40 specific components and has found that most/all parts are standard Ford automotive parts. Its a more complex engine for sure, and a little trickier to troubleshoot than a carb'd boat, but a good motor nonetheless.

A GT40 will have more power for footing than a standard 240hp carb'd 351w... but its not the MPEFI that makes it more powerful. A carb'd motor can be built up to the same (or higher) hp levels very easily.

TimSpangler wrote: I believe that biggest difference in the GT-40 (at least I know from an automotive perspective) was the airflow. The GT-40 eliminated a lot of the airflow restrictions and generally allowed the engine to "breathe" better.

I believe the GT40 and the other PCM HO 351w's (carb/TBI) shared the same longblock (block/heads/cam/pistons). The only difference was the intake (and of course the fuel system). They all performed similarly well, and had similar hp ratings (285-310hp).